Welcome.

Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.

How it works

Free Video: CLP Video No. 118: Podcast concepts in action II

Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
New to Crush Live Poker?

Crush Live Call-ins No 153. "Barreling and Value"

BartBart Posts: 4,778AdministratorLeadPro
This week Bart takes some calls regarding a small stakes tournament, getting check raised with an overpair, turning our hand into a bluff and Grimstarr alls in with a hand vs Shaun Deeb.

http://www.crushlivepoker.com/podcasts/barreling-and-value
Tagged:

Comments

  • today32today32 Posts: 30Subscriber
    edited November 14
    Bart said:
    @Bart @StayInSchool

    Due to first-time-caller jitters, I wasn't able to clearly communicate a couple of thoughts on the phone call and I had holes in the villain's flop range, so I wanted to revise my thoughts/questions here...

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    I was the caller from Houston (maybe the 4th call) and here are the hand details:

    $1/1 home game, 7 handed, $400 effective

    $4 straddle is on from UTG

    [PRE-FLOP]
    From UTG1, Hero raises to $14 with Q T

    BB calls, Straddle calls

    - BB's Pre-Flop Calling Range
    -- Any two suited cards, Any two connectors

    [FLOP ($42)] K 6 3
    BB checks, Straddle leads for $14, Hero raises to $35, BB calls, Straddle folds

    - BB's Flop Range:
    -- 66 value combos: 1 combo of KK, 1 combo QQ, 1 combo of JJ, 6 combos of 66/33, 7 combos of suited 2 pairs, 10 combos of AK, all 9 combos of KQ, all 12 combos of KJ, all 9 combos of KT, 6 combos of K9, 2 combos of K8
    -- 48 draw combos: 12 combos of 45, all 36 flush draw combos.

    [TURN ($126)] T
    BB checks, Hero bets $55, BB calls

    BB's Turn Range (before the turn betting, but factoring in the Turn Card):
    - 63 value combos: 1 combo of KK, 1 combo QQ, 1 combo of JJ, 6 combos of 66/33, 7 combos of suited 2 pairs, 10 combos of AK, all 9 combos of KQ, all 12 combos of KJ, all 6 combos of KT, 6 combos of K9, 2 combos of K8
    - 48 draw combos: 12 combos of 45, all 36 flush draw combos.

    BB's Turn Range (after betting):
    - 52 value combos: 1 combo of KK, 1 combo QQ, 1 combo of JJ, 6 combos of 66/33, 7 combos of suited 2 pairs, 10 combos of AK, 8 combos of KQ, 8 combos of KJ, all 6 combos of KT, 3 combo of K9, 1 combo of K8
    - 48 draw combos: All 16 combos of 45, all 36 flush draw combos.

    [RIVER ($236)] A
    BB checks, Hero checks
    BB shows K 6

    --------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed above in the BB's Turn Range, there are 63 value combos and 48 draw combos. We have paired the T and are now ahead of all the draw combos. Is this as simple as saying, "I should check because he has more value combos than draw combos"?

    If i check the turn with a plan to bluff the river if I miss, he is likely to call me down with even the bottom of his value range (K8, K9, KJ, KQ). But if I bet turn and then bet river, he might fold 2 combos of K8, 6 combos of K9, 6 combos of KJ, and 2 combos of KQ (16 value combos). Given that the river in this case was an A, he would likely fold 5 additional combos of KQ and 2 additional combos of KJ (23 value combos total).

    My other hesitation in checking the turn is that it emboldens the villain to bluff lead the river if he has a drawing combo that he misses, putting me in a tough situation having to distinguish between his bluffs and value hands.

    Here are 4 simplified outcomes for what the Villain would do on the river:

    1. We Bet Turn, We Brick River, We Bluff River - Villain folds all draw combos that didn't improve to 2 pair or better, plus folds weaker top pair hands. Villain's frequency of bluff leading the river with a missed draw is reduced due to our turn bet, so we can comfortably fold to a river lead.

    2. We Check Turn, We Brick River, We Bluff River - Villain folds all draw combos that didn't improve to 2 pair or better, but calls with all value combos. Villain's frequency of bluff leading the river with a missed draw is increased due to our turn check, so we will have a tough decision against a river lead.

    3. We Bet Turn, We Improve on River, We Value Bet River - Villain folds all draw combos that didn't improve to 2 pair or better, plus folds weaker top pair hands. Villain's frequency of bluff leading the river with a missed draw is reduced due to our turn bet, so we can comfortably fold to a river lead.

    4. We Check Turn, We Improve on River, We Value Bet River - Villain folds all draw combos that didn't improve to 2 pair or better, but calls with all value combos. Villain's frequency of bluff leading the river with a missed draw is increased due to our turn check, so we will have a tough decision against a river lead.

    So to summarize, is there any value to making a neutral or slightly negative EV bet on the turn, given that 1) it would get value from drawing hands on the turn, 2) it would make a our river bluff more effective against the bottom of his value range, and 3) it would make a river lead by the Villain easily identifiable as a value bet?
  • dpbuckdpbuck Posts: 1,631Subscriber
    edited November 14
    today32 said:


    So to summarize, is there any value to making a neutral or slightly negative EV bet on the turn, given that 1) it would get value from drawing hands on the turn, 2) it would make a our river bluff more effective against the bottom of his value range, and 3) it would make a river lead by the Villain easily identifiable as a value bet?
    With regards to point 2, it is important to remember that you now beat the bottom of his value range, so you don't need to bluff. I think that is more important than trying to get value from some of his draws. Additionally, now that you have SDV, why would you want to prevent villain from bluffing the river?
  • today32today32 Posts: 30Subscriber
    edited November 14
    dpbuck said:
    it is important to remember that you now beat the bottom of his value range, so you don't need to bluff. I think that is more important than trying to get value from some of his draws.
    I think the bottom of his value range is a single paired K, which we don't beat. That's why I was thinking I ought to continue barreling the turn to get value from draws, possibly fold out a few of those weaker K combos, and give more credence to a river bluff if needed.
    dpbuck said:
    Additionally, now that you have SDV, why would you want to prevent villain from bluffing the river?
    I'm only going to get 1 street of value from the drawing combos. I either get value on the turn and have a clear fold to a river lead (which would be a value hand), or I check the turn and hope that he bluff leads river (which he may not always do), but if he does lead river I have a challenging decision to call or not.

    So the turn bet is basically a value bet against his drawing range, a bluff against the bottom of his value range, and a block bet against the rest of his value range. Is this a valid line of thinking?
  • dpbuckdpbuck Posts: 1,631Subscriber
    If villain is wide enough to have every FD combo and every 45 combo, along with QQ/JJ, then he's going to have some 6x in his range was well (which I thought I recalled you even saying that on the call).

    If you are planning on barrelling, then you need to be sizing much bigger so you can shove the river. Flop sizing bigger, Turn sizing bigger, Shove river would need to be your line. However, I don't see getting many better hands to fold.

  • BartBart Posts: 4,778AdministratorLeadPro
    edited November 14
    dpbuck said:
    If villain is wide enough to have every FD combo and every 45 combo, along with QQ/JJ, then he's going to have some 6x in his range was well (which I thought I recalled you even saying that on the call).

    If you are planning on barrelling, then you need to be sizing much bigger so you can shove the river. Flop sizing bigger, Turn sizing bigger, Shove river would need to be your line. However, I don't see getting many better hands to fold.

    Speaking to what Dana said here I am pretty sure that on the phone you said that he would sometimes end up with a 6 or a 3 and 45 because he wanted to "beat you".

    In terms of getting value from draws and bluffing some of his worse Ks, that would be what we call a combo bet but his range seems much wider than just weak kings for value. Also, if you were trying to bluff him off of some of his weaker holdings that beat you, then why not turn your hand into a bluff on the river? That was my first reaction when you said river was an ace. If you think he has all of these offsuit King combos then that will be more than Ax combos. Bart
  • today32today32 Posts: 30Subscriber
    dpbuck said:
    If villain is wide enough to have every FD combo and every 45 combo, along with QQ/JJ, then he's going to have some 6x in his range was well (which I thought I recalled you even saying that on the call).
    On the call I said he could have all 16 combos of 45, but I suppose I could see him folding that some of the time, so I revised that in my post to be 12 combos of 45. And he definitely would call with any two suited cards, so he for sure has all 36 flush draw combos. I have seen this guy call a 12x raise out of position with 23off before.

    Of the 9 combos of QQ/JJ, I think only 2 of those combos would survive the straddle's bet and my raise on the flop. I don't think he's calling with any 6s at all unless it's 6 X, but he's definitely calling all flush draws and open ended straight draws.
    dpbuck said:
    If you are planning on barrelling, then you need to be sizing much bigger so you can shove the river. Flop sizing bigger, Turn sizing bigger, Shove river would need to be your line. However, I don't see getting many better hands to fold.
    Yes, this is a tough thing for me and an area where I'm trying to grow... I kill this game with value over and over, and occasionally throw in single barrel bluffs and some double barrel bluffs with equity when the situation is optimal, but given that my value hand bet sizing is not super large, it makes it less believable for me to bluff with a larger sizing.

    Bart mentioned this on the call too, the idea of playing with different bet sizings, so I need to start looking at that and thinking through which opponents are likely to hero call and which ones are likely to fold.

    In a game where the other players are not paying close attention, could I be exploitative and have certain loose players who I nearly always use large sizings with value, and other tighter players who I nearly always use large sizings as bluffs?

    I used to always bet 60+% of pot on the river with value hands, but realized I was getting way too many folds in spots where 40% of pot would have gotten a call. I guess over the last year or two I've just gone with a "bet smaller, bluff less" approach instead of a "bet larger, bluff more" approach.
  • today32today32 Posts: 30Subscriber
    edited November 14
    Thanks @Bart, I appreciate your thoughts...
    Bart said:
    Speaking to what Dana said here I am pretty sure that on the phone you said that he would sometimes end up with a 6 or a 3 and 45 because he wanted to "beat you".
    I may have misspoke on the phone or just not been able to thoroughly communicate my thoughts due to the jitters and being ill-prepared for the call. While historically he may hero me down with bottom pair in some pots due to a read, in this hand (due to the flop lead by the straddler and my raise) I don't think he has any single pair 6s unless it's 6 X, and since the 3 was a club, I don't think he has any 3s in his range at all.

    If I have another hand in the future, I'll be sure to type up a post on it and be prepared for the call with my thoughts all fleshed out and fresh in my mind.
    Bart said:
    In terms of getting value from draws and bluffing some of his worse Ks, that would be what we call a combo bet but his range seems much wider than just weak kings for value. Also, if you were trying to bluff him off of some of his weaker holdings that beat you, then why not turn your hand into a bluff on the river? That was my first reaction when you said river was an ace. If you think he has all of these offsuit King combos then that will be more than Ax combos.
    Yes, I probably should have bluffed... but to be honest when the river hit and I missed, my balls shrunk and I mentally froze. This guy has read a couple of river bluffs from me in the recent past and called me down, and that was in the forefront of my mind. I knew that a river check gets me to showdown where I beat all of his drawing combos, but I was afraid that after I froze, he might read the hesitation/indecision in my river bet and still call me even if he had a single paired K. I was brave on the turn, but then chickened out on the river and changed my thinking, not optimal, lol.

    I think in the future I should approach it like this: While contemplating what to do on the turn, if I choose to bet the turn, then also think through what I will do on the river when I miss or when certain cards come. If I hit my hand, I'm going to bet $xxx, if I miss and the river is a good bluff card I'm going to bet $xxx, and if I miss and the river is a bad bluff card then I'll check behind. Then after I have decided that, I can bet the turn and then act on the river at a normal pace.

    This way I don't freeze on the river and take longer than normal to think through a bluff size, thus making it easier to read as a bluff. I rarely run really big bluffs, so I guess I just need more practice.

    I appreciated what you said on the call about playing with larger bet sizes, that's a subject that has come to mind over the past 2 weeks, so I need to figure out how to implement near-pot and over-pot bets (in what scenarios and against which opponents).

    The other thing you mentioned (and someone in the chat too) was that his speech commentary on my hand before he cold-called my flop raise increases the likelihood that his hand is nutted. I think with a draw or a single paired K he keeps his mouth shut and just calls. I'll definitely lock that gem away for further confirmation and future use.
Sign In or Register to comment.